On-line web-base services are widely used in today's society, a typical example being on-line banking services. However, problems associated with transaction security have caused serious challenges and risks to institutions and their customers. The increase in identity theft and the resulting financial losses have become major obstacles that institutions have sought to overcome to ensure a secure on-line environment and to maximize the potential benefits and value of on-line services.
Authentication
The traditional way to authenticate a user is to provide a user name and password from the user's client computer. However, this one-factor authentication is not secure enough to protect either the user or the institution from attack by malicious software or malware (including ‘Trojan horses’) using approaches such as man-in-the-middle (MITM), man-in-the-browser (MITB), and keystroke logging.
A man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack is one in which the attacker intercepts messages in a public key exchange and then retransmits them, substituting his own public key for the requested one, so that the two original parties still appear to be communicating with each other.
Man-in-the-browser (MITB) is a security attack where the perpetrator installs a Trojan horse on a victim's computer that is capable of modifying that user's web transactions as they occur in real time. A man-in-the-browser attack, unlike “phishing”, can occur even when the victim enters the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) into the browser independently, without an external prompt. On the surface, transactions take place normally with expected prompts and password requirements. An MITB attack is more difficult to prevent and disinfect, however, because the activity, instead of occurring in an interchange of messages over the public network, takes place between the user and the security mechanisms within that user's browser or client computer.
Two-factor authentication (TFA) is a security process in which the user provides two means of identification, one of which may be a physical token, such as a card, security token or Universal Serial Bus (USB) device, and the other is typically something memorized, such as a security code. In this context, the two factors involved are sometimes spoken of as “something you have” and “something you know”.
Although TFA improves the authentication security, its implementation tends to lead to a costly system. In many TFA systems today, the verification of both the physical token and the security code are conducted at a remote authentication server. This approach may require separate protocols to authenticate the physical token identifier and the user security code. Since a centralized authentication server must deal with large volumes of on-line transactions at the same time, this approach also results in scalability issues.
Identity Protection
In a global economy with billions of transactions carried daily over insecure public Internet Protocol (IP) networks, identity protection becomes paramount. Transactions are based on the trust that each party places in the integrity of the other's credentials. Hence there is a need for stronger identity credentials providing better protection from tampering, and enabling safer high-value transactions in areas such as healthcare, and banking operations. The resultant proliferation of identity systems is forcing individuals to become their own identity administrators.
What is needed is a flexible and simple identity protection mechanism that can be used across several service providers, is able to accommodate complex identity relationships, and provides ways to eliminate or mitigate common security vulnerabilities.
Transaction Verification
Organizations are increasingly vulnerable to substantial economic loss from cyber security attacks. In the case of an information security breach, financial institutions in particular can be exposed to significant financial loss, as well as a loss of reputation. In general, the user computer environment is considered to be insecure with potential for a variety of malicious software to be inserted, such as keystroke recorder, Trojan horse, or even screen recorder, etc., able to record a user's keystrokes, redirect critical messages to a fake server, or to effectively “video record” the user computer's screen (buffer). By using a variety of means, hackers are able to steal user's identities. Even worse, local sessions can be hijacked and critical data modified.
Current solutions are largely aimed at improving the network communication security aspects (even though the actual network communication links are secure enough—as long as man-in-the-middle attacks and the like are prevented). However, the bigger problem lies in detecting and preventing attacks on communications within the client platform itself.
The shortcomings of the current systems apply to personal computer clients running browsers, as well as to personal hand-held digital assistants, ‘smart-phones’, and like network client devices.
What is needed is a cost-effective system having the ability to establish a mutually trusted communication path between institutions and their users, to provide enhanced authentication and verification services in a manner applicable to a wide range of network client devices, and to insulate the transaction from the insecure environment of the user's computer.